Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jagerbomber]

Even though you worded it in a way that no one can understand  , I (mostly) know what you're saying because I know that people seem to always think that "procedural generation" means things are randomly done every time and always ask that question out of confusion.

I was just wondering (or making sure) that these rocks were the same as everything else done to the terrain.

[Heyworth]

Is it possible that this feature could eventually allow for stone walls...
Or would you class walls as separate models?

[ZeosPantera]

A few waves breaking on those and they are going to be SWEEEEEET.

[Midviki]

Is it possible that this feature could eventually allow for stone walls...
Or would you class walls as separate models?

You can make those in a 3D modeling program... looking just like those.I'm actually working on something similar like that right now.The only thing is that you need to find the right method that the importer will accept.

But I like the snow to be from the engine... when the weather is very rich in water / snow, it would be nice for everything to have a glassy look from rain and snow to make layers and even melt or turn to ice.That's what should the engine do from my opinion.The stone walls you can make them in a 3D program.

[Heyworth]

Would it slow the engine down (as a model) compared to 'naturally generated'?

[ZeosPantera]

Having the engine create those walls like it does a road is far more economical and will allow the benefits of snow and biome randomization.

[Midviki]

Having the engine create those walls like it does a road is far more economical and will allow the benefits of snow and biome randomization.

If you import it as a model, it can have animation and when go trough it with a tank or a vehicle you can have it do animation ( pre-made animation ofc ).And it can shatter in to million pieces as you have you animation made.

But as the engine doing the animation and other stuff... it might get serious on the hardware.And it is a lot of optimization after you manage to succeed such complex operation.

In my opinion I think it is easier to have like 5 animations on a wall, and have a simple collision box depending on the forces that you apply to it by the impact and do it simple.Than tremendous waste of work from the engine developers side.And yes it might help using it in other circumstances.But I still believe it is more efficient to import the wall as a model.

[ZeosPantera]

Animations is the last thing I want to see. Too much of that crap in Arma. If I crash through a wall it had better be calculated by physics and shown by modifying the terrain in 3ms like cameni said it would. So having the wall hit by a tank or a cannon could remove / reposition the volume of the wall and change the texture to match. Perhaps spawning some actual model rocks with full physics characteristics as it is happening.

Oh the possibilities.

[PaTrond]

Don't get me wrong, I love the progression! But there's just that I think it looks a bit too molten, both a bit too much into the ground and in the texture. Sure dirt softens the differences between the ground a rock, but I still don't quite get the rock feeling of it. What I mean about molten is that the rocks - in general - reminds me a bit too much about pyramids. The texture of the rock seems to be sharing more of the shape of dirt than actual rock, which mostly looks like What I linked just under.

Some examples of what I mean about texture: 1 - 2

What kind of rock/ boulders "molten" into ground I'm used to: 1 - 2 - 3

I don't mean that all rocks should be bare and clean, nono! It's just that close to oceans and sandy places, there's a lot less dirt on them, as it's washed away. Same goes for hill sides, where the dirt often goes on top, but sinks further down on the side facing the descending direction of the mountain (captain obvious here..) Still there is often some dirt with greenery of larger rocks near/ in oceans, so this isn't like really far out and wrong! So, I still see a lot I like! For example how some rocks pop out of the ground on one side, how the dirt covers the rock on the other, and how grass covers the rock where there's a decent amount dirt.

[sniperwolfpk5]

A few waves breaking on those and they are going to be SWEEEEEET.

Such a nice looking shots. Really impressive And under water rocks that are so sweet. The only thing which should be not there is the repeating pattern on 2nd image. I mean on ocean

[Midviki]

Animations is the last thing I want to see.

And I understand that.I know animation limits your power / control over the object and it damns you to a painful agony of work.I would prefer physics as well.

But I was pointing out that it would take time for what you just said with the physics within the wall generated.

And the issues is that if you want a custom kind of wall / brick / granite.. etc. I think its a lot of work from the developers point of view to make it possible for your custom texture and object to be adapted, looped and each loop to be blended within each other.And for example from what I have seen and tested... you can get a higher resolution and you can make any custom shape or form of the object made in a 3D software.Like this one:



But for example except from animation, and the collision keeping it more than just 1 box.
Or I could make each piece as an object individually and chain them together as a group like the vehicle bones, for when I want from a bigger piece to create cracks and shatter smaller pieces.I'm thinking it might be a bit resource consuming maybe.. or not.. haven't got to that part yet.And compared with the terrain generating methods I don't know which is more efficient.

There are Ups and Downs.And I know it probably has a greater value than animation for the future.But it is something that you can't do now!!

It needs to be developed and rigorously tested.And there are other visual things that are bothering to the simple naked eye and need attendance.Like clouds, rivers, lakes, trees, seas, oceans..etc.And I know I can't just demand things, everything requires money, resources and manpower.

I can just add some idea with the hope that it may be a new idea or not, that might help or not.

[cameni]

[Juggernautz]

That just looks absolutely stunning. I can only imagine what it will be like with 3D trees, biome foliage, weather/clouds and some animated wildlife... the future of Outerra looks bright indeed.

[Éadríc]

Lovely! It certainly adds to the natural feel.

Though this reminds me: the ground in pine forests as I know them is not draped with lush grass but a mixture of earthy and mossy, and (for lack of a better word) bumpy.

[ZeosPantera]

I need to see these with The modified desert texture packs. Red rock deserts will look insane.